Preparatory Text 4

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, amen. There is a distinct problem which arises of the idea that reality is fundamentally consciousness. For the rock in question is actually related to every other thing within the contingent reality and even so within necessary reality as well. There is a logical relationship between that rock and everything else that is not that rock. So, for the rock to be fully itself, its consciousness, however inert, must include everything else which is not that rock. So, somehow, we have just upgraded the consciousness of a rock into God Himself.

Yet this contradicts our very consciousness which is clearly not of God and of ourselves. At the same time, it may very well be that anything without its own soul is within the possession of God. However, the idea of panphenomenalism is still a problem due to the fact that the single system of contingency can be divided into any arbitrary way and there is no real way to categorize any object into a particular composite. The one solution is by investigating our personal intellect and comparing that with the outside world, or by returning to the painful process of investigating the multiple scenarios of consciousness.

First scenario, A and B, A is conscious and B is unconscious. When B ends, A will not end, and when A ends, B will not end either. After all, A and B are both separate objects under the eyes of God and so when God ends either, the other do not lose their essence. Second scenario, A and B, A is conscious and B is conscious. The same case happens, and nothing changes. Third scenario, A and B, but B does not exist separate from A. In this case, there is only A and so if A ends B ends. But depending on which is dependent on which, either A can exist without B, or A cannot exist without B either.

Again, A and B. But here, A is an intellectual observer which is able to observe both itself and B. The distinction between the consciousness of A and B is that A has an intellectual consciousness while B has a passive non-intellectual consciousness. B clearly possess all knowledge of itself. In fact, B is the knowledge of itself. A simply possess an intellect which can integrate the knowledge of B into itself, and thus causing a union between A and B.

Let us expand the system. A, a human, and B, a rock, within 2 rooms. A is in room A, and B is in room B. A walks into room B and discovers the rock. Now, depending on the theory, what just happened could be very different. According to the theory of panepistemism or panphenomenalism, there is a union of consciousness between B and A. Yet there is a discrepancy. It seems B and A have different levels or is possible to have different levels. So we must investigate them. It is clear that A is the one not possessing B in the first state, so there are no variations regarding A. So the problem is with B. B is either in possession of A, or B is not in possession of A. What is also certain is that B’s consciousness is immutable. So it is either B forever or it is all forever.

The first theory is called universal phenomenalism and the second theory is local phenomenalism. Yet, universal phenomenalism is problematic because it elevates B into God. While local phenomenalism is problematic as the boundaries of B is not well-defined. In fact, as known already, the boundaries of any object within contingent reality is impossible to define, except for one thing, that is our problematic consciousness. Now universal phenomenalism is possible, but we must then accept that B is fundamentally nothing other than God. Therefore, the motion from A's original state into the union with B is actually union with God.

For B to be a contingent object as A is a contingent object, and being separate from God for that reason, B has to be locally phenomenal. Its consciousness must be defined and bounded as much as A is defined and bounded. Now we must also define that the consciousness of B is so primitive that it lacks any way of experiencing and thus responding to external influence. That is why the consciousness of B is inert, it lacks any soul. Therefore, A has monopoly over the union between A and B. In the perspective of B, there is never any phenomenal union with A, the phenomenal state of B remains the same. Only A has phenomenal union with B, even if there is actual union between the 2 objects. Yet, if there is to be actual union of the 2 objects, it is the breakdown of the barriers between A and B, thus uniting into a single object that is A. In other words, B ceases to exist as something separate from A, its ontological status is changed into being a part of A.

However, perhaps the nature of B does not matter. It may not matter whether B is non-phenomenal, universally phenomenal, or locally phenomenal, because indeed as we are only A, what matters is only A. So let us know what happens to A in the 2 principal theories, non-phenomenalism and phenomenalism. In phenomenalism, there is a phenomenal union, dominated by A, between A and B. Yet what does happen when B is a completely dead non-phenomenal object encountered by A? Let us retain the example of A moving from the state of itself into the state of experiencing B.

Then A obtains knowledge of B by their experience of B. For experience is the source of knowledge. Yet what is the knowledge of B? As the idea of God tells us, the knowledge of B is actually B itself. Therefore, there is substantial union between A and B, without erasing the distinction between A and B. However, while B becomes part of A, it really still is B without losing its separation and difference from A. Now, let us say that A possess the knowledge of B and then returns to its former position. It would actually be as if A did not change position, yet in truth it did. Therefore, we may say that B now inhabits 2 places at once, that is itself, and in the consciousness of A as the knowledge form of B. For A possess perfect knowledge of B, in this scenario, and so when A attains that knowledge of B, B lives forever in A, even if B were to be ended actually, then A would still possess B and so when that happens, A must be destroyed as well to completely be rid of B.

This resolves the problem of phenomenalism by rendering it insignificant at all. Yet the distinct union of the 2 natures of existence and knowledge is proven by God being the union of knowledge and existence. Therefore, all things are fundamentally knowledge, and so the union between man and knowledge is the extension of man into knowledge, and while knowledge remains the same, man can change the world around him and thus the knowledge changes as well. So all objects are fundamentally objects of knowledge. They have an existential nature and an intellectual nature at the same time, in union, without separation. Wait, where have I heard this idea?

The Comparison Between Phenomenal and Non-Phenomenal Conditions

Now, observing between phenomenal and non-phenomenal existence in respect to the subject, we shall find that the result is fundamentally the same. While yes the only evidence that we have is our awareness and experiences, but we fundamentally acknowledge that the self is simply a bundle of experiences united by the factor of self-consciousness and a real factor of God’s determinative act on our existence. Therefore, when objects enter our consciousness, there is a real union between the object and consciousness. When the object then is stored within consciousness, there the object possess bilocation first outside the subject and second inside the self of the subject.

Anti Recollection, Moderate Recollection, and Clear Recollection

This section investigates the recollective powers of the soul, also known as memory. When we see something, we remember it. It seems that memory is stored both inside the soul and inside the brain, but we access it mostly through our brain. As such, when the brain is damaged, then memory can be disrupted as well. This is not just by unordinary cases of damage, but also common age related diseases such as dementia and alzheimers which attacks the brain and thus corrupts the memory. Now what is memory or the recollective power? Memory refers to the capacity of humans and animals to possess and retain information of what they have experienced and to reaccess it in another time.

At the level of metaphysics, memory is identical to knowledge, it is the knowledge of the past. Now, knowledge is primarily a function of the intellect which is of the higher faculties of the soul. However, since we humans are composite of soul and body, then for some reason our memories are not as clear as we like them to be. In the ideal state, our memory should be perfectly clear such that as we develop in time, we could easily reaccess the past as if we are reexperiencing the past. Yet such clear recollection is not available in us. What we possess is what I may call moderate recollection. As such, our knowledge fluctuates as our memories and thoughts fluctuate.

The Other Intellects

How do we prove that humans other than ourselves possess an intellect like us? The intellect does not act alone, it acts with a will. The primary constituents of the soul is the conscious being, the intellect, and the will. The primary act of the soul is to know and act according to that knowledge.

New Section of the Preparatory Text 4

I honestly do not know what to write anymore. It is as if the work of the philosophers are finished. I cannot know many things. There is just no joy anymore within me regarding these things. I want understanding and certainty. Yet it seems that there is no possible certainty, everything is just a presupposition that must be accepted. The problem of the other soul is that they are empirical, they transcend ordinary philosophy or the narrower form of philosophy. And I am not capable in empirical problems. But it seems nor am I capable in philosophy either. The problems seem to be finished.

Can I continue the Project of Revelation? I am starting to have doubts.